Youvereadoneofyourfourcomplementaryarticlesforthis

month.
Youcanreadfourarticlesforfreepermonth.Tohavecomplete
accesstothethousandsofphilosophyarticlesonthissite,please
SUBSCRIBE!

Articles
Print
Email
Discuss
Share

Morearticles
fromthisissue

AMatterofConsent
SimonSmitharguesthatmanydiscussionsofabortionmissthepoint.
Mostofusdontliketothinkofourselvesasbeingeasilyshocked.Adelicatenatureis
hardlythestampofarobustintellect.Besides,werealladultshere.Weknowhowtoask
hardquestions,facehardtruths.Thatswhatitmeanstohaveaphilosophicalframeof
mind.Wererational,reasonableclearanddistinctthinkers,asDescartesusedtosay.
Letssee,shallwe?Imgoingtomakesomefairlyshockingclaims.Primarily,thatsdown
tomysubjectmatter,whichisabortion.Weretalkingabouttakingalife,and,genetically
speaking,ahumanlifeatthat.Addthefactthatthislifeiscommonlyregardedasinnocent,

andwehave,atbest,aprofoundlydifficultmoralchallenge.Atworst,ofcourse,itseven
moreserious.Ifthosewhocampaignagainstabortionarecorrect,thenweretalkingabout
murderingbabies:morethanfortymillionayearaccordingtotheU.N.PopulationDivision
(unpopulation.org).ThephilosopherDavidOderberghassummedupthatperspectivelike
this:homicidesareandhaveforthelastfewdecadesbeentakingplaceonascale
unprecedentedinhumanhistory.(AppliedEthics,p.3,2000.)Thatmakesitsoundabit
likegenocide.Nothingtoocontroversial,then.
Whatcouldbemoreshockingthanthebarefactsofthecase?Well,heresmycontribution.
Standardformulationsoftheabortionargumentmissthepoint.Talkaboutmurderingbabies
mayormaynotbeaccurate,butitisirrelevant.Bluntly,thepointIllbemakingisthatthe
typicalargumentagainstabortionprovidesamoraljustificationfordomesticviolence,rape,
andmurder.
Insoberphilosophicalterms,Iwillarguethattheantiabortionargumentfallsintoself
contradiction:itclaimstodefendtherighttolifewhilesimultaneouslydenyinglifethevalue
thatmakesitworthdefending.Inotherwords,antiabortionistsdontsimplynegatethe
moralstatusofthefemalehalfofourspeciestheynegatethemoralstatusofallofus.Its
donewithasimpleobjectification:designatingpeopleasthings.Asthings,welackany
specialmoralstatusthatcouldsupportanydemandsforarighttolife.Thisoutrightdenial
ofpersonhoodis,Ithink,thelogicalconclusionofmostargumentsagainstabortion.

TheBabyandTheViolinist
Thestandardformulationoftheabortiondebatecomesdowntoastraightforwardconflict
ofrights.Incivilisedsocieties,womenhavetherighttodecidewhathappensinandtotheir
bodies.Eventhosemoststronglyopposedtoabortiondontgenerallydisputethat.What
antiabortionistsdodisputeisthefailureofproabortioniststoassignthesamemoralstatus
tothefoetus.Bothmotherandfoetushaverightsrightsthatcancomeintoconflict.This
conflict,antiabortionistsclaim,iseasilyseenandeasilyresolved.Thefoetus,likethe
woman,hasafundamentalrighttolife,andthatrightcannotbesubordinatedtoawomans
authorityoverherownbody.Theirargument,then,ostensiblyconcernswhetherornotthe
foetusbelongsinthesamemoralcategoryasareproductivelymaturewoman.Nowmoral
categoriesandmoralstatusmaybephilosophicallyappropriateterminology,butcanyou
imagineanyonefirebombingaclinicbecauseofadisputeovermoralcategories?Letsbe
clear,thisargumentisaboutsomethingmorebasic.Itsaboutwhetherthefoetusisaperson
ornot.

Atleastthatswhatmostpeopleseemtoassume.Butin1971,JudithJarvisThomsongave
thephilosophicalideasboxagoodshakewithherarticleInDefenceofAbortion(inthe
journalPhilosophy&PublicAffairs,Vol.1,no.1,andcurrentlyavailableat
www.spot.colorado.edu).Unusuallyforaphilosopher,Thomsonimmediatelyconcededthat
thefoetusprobablyisapersonfromthemomentofconception.Farfromconcedingthe
argument,however,sheclaimedinsteadthatsettlingthenatureofthefoetusdoesntanswer
thequestionIsabortionlegitimate?Shearguedthatbeingapersonandhavingarightto
lifedoesntnecessarilyentailtheillegitimacyofendingthatlife.Theresapremisemissing
here.
Thomsonillustratedthelogicalgapwithananalogyaboutaviolinist.Imaginethatyouwake
uponemorningwithaworldfamousviolinistpluggedintoyourkidneys.Thisviolinisthas
sufferedsuddenkidneyfailurewhilepassingthroughtown.Thelocalmusicsocietya
prettywellconnectedbunch,apparentlyhaddetailsofyourbloodgroup,anditsamatch
fortheviolinist.Sotheydruggedyou,kidnappedyou,andhookedyouuptohimtoprovide
himwithdialysis.Nowyouretheonlythingstandingbetweenhimandhisfinalcurtaincall.
ThequestionThomsonasksisAreyoumorallyobligedtostayhookedupforthenine
monthsitwilltaketheviolinisttorecover?Hehasarighttolife,certainly,andhewilldieif
youdont,butareyouwrongtorefusetostay?
Letssupposeyouvegotaheartasbigasalloutdoors,soyousay,Well,ninemonthsisa
longtimeItsalottoask,butweretalkingaboutahumanlifehere.Forthesakeofnine
months,Illstay.Goodforyou.Butwhatifitwerenineyears?Whatifitwasfortherest
ofyourlife?Thatreallyisalottoask.Howevernobleitmightbeforyoutoagreetostay,
evenfortherestofyourlife,itcanhardlybeamoralrequirement.Actsofheroismare
heroicpreciselybecausetheygoaboveandbeyondmoralrequirements.Andifanything
maybedeemedheroic,savingthisviolinistslifebyagreeingtobeahumandialysismachine
is.

MisconceptionsofThomsonsArgument
Oddly,peopleoftengetabitconfusedaboutwhatThomsonisdoinghere.Onecommon
assumptionisthatheranalogydemonstratesthelegitimacyofterminatingpregnancies
resultingfromrape,butnothingmore.
Itsanunderstandableposition,anditsentirelymistaken.Infact,wecantsimply
determinethelegitimacyofabortionaccordingtothecircumstancesofconception.Doso,

andmattersoflifeanddeatharesettledonthebasisofamostappallinglyarbitrary
distinction:itmeansthatachildconceivedbyrapehasadifferentmoralstatusfromone
conceivedbyconsensualsexandbydifferenthere,wereallymeannoneatall.But
thatcantberight.Whetherornotsomeonehasarighttolivecanhavenothingtodowith
whattheirparentswereuptoatthefirstmeetingofspermandegg.Ifweclaimthat
abortionisacceptableincasesofrape,then,wemusteitheragreethatabortionisacceptable
inallothercases,orwemustdefendaprofoundlydisturbingprejudice.
AnotherthingpeopleoftendowhenfacedbyThomsonsanalogyispointtothedifference
betweenfoetusesandsickviolinists.Well,yes.Itwouldntbeananalogyotherwise.And
theresnodenyingthatnormalpregnanciesrarelyinvolvelyinginbedforninemonthswith
atotalstranger.However,exactlyhowthatssupposedtoaffecttheargumentisunclear.
Perhapsweremeanttothinkthattheexistenceofageneticrelationshipbetweenmother
andfoetussomehowmakesamoraldifference.Butwhyshouldit?What,afterall,has
geneticstodowithmorality?Issomeonesworthhisorherrighttolifetobedecidedon
theoutcomeofaDNAtest?Ifso,thenconsiderthis:Shouldtheviolinistturnouttobeyour
longlostbrother,youindeedwilldowrongtodisconnectyourselffromhimandlethimdie
however,aslongashesastranger,theresnomoralquestiontoanswer.Similarly,ifa
womanweretobekidnappedandhaveanotherwomansfertilisedeggimplantedintoher
womb,shetoocouldlegitimatelyoptforabortion:itsonlyiftheresageneticrelationthat
abortionmattersmorally.Obviously,werebackinthesamesituationwewereinwhen
consideringthecircumstancesofconceptiongroundingmoralworthinarbitraryand
irrelevantfacts.Theemotionalandpsychologicalbondsbetweenkithandkinmaybe
strongerthanthosebetween,say,peoplewhomerelyshareanofficethatourmoral
obligationstoworkcolleaguesarethereforelessdoesntobviouslyfollow.(Infact,inher
articleThomsondidntjustconcedethatthefoetusisaperson:shewantedtoseewhatis
impliedifweagreethatthefoetusisapersonintherichestsense.Thatswhyinher
analogythisisntjustanyoldfiddleplayer.Hesaworldfamousviolinist:apersonatthe
peakofhiscreativepowersanartistbringingjoytootherstheworldover.Thisissomeone
whosevalueasapersoncannotbeinanydoubtatall.)
PerhapsthemostseriousmistakeconcerningThomsonsargument,istheideathatthe
victimschoiceisthecentralissue.Butifyouvebeenkidnappedanddrugged,youhavent
beengivenachoice.Whetherornotyoustayorgoisnotthepointoftheanalogy,andto
saythatyourchoiceaboutthisisthemoralturningpointisentirelymisleading.Itisachoice
ofcourse,ifweregoingtobepedanticinthesamewaythat,shouldsomeonepullaknife
onyouinthestreet,youdonthavetohandoveryourmoney.Youcouldchoosemajor
surgeryandbeingscarredforlifeinstead.Butifyouwokeuptofindyourselfbeingusedas
ahumandialysismachine,wouldyouacceptthatthemorallydecisivemomentinthewhole
affairisyourdecisiontostayorgo?Wouldntyoupointoutthat,ifitsmoralitywere
concernedwith,theresalittlematterofkidnappingthatneedsdealingwithfirst?Surelythe

kidnappingisthedefiningmomenthere.Itsetsthestageforwhateverdecisionsfollow.
Anychoiceyounowmakeisaresponsetothatsituation:yourchoiceisnotstrictly
determined,perhaps,butitscertainlymadeunderextremeduress.
Beingkidnapped,drugged,andnottoputtoofineapointonitviolated,isboundto
informyourdecision.Theviolinistsconditionandyourresponsetoitcantbeseparated
fromthecircumstancesthatleduptothem.Wecantignorethoseeventsandjudgeyour
decisionasthoughitweremadefromapointofmoralneutrality,anymorethanwecan
reasonablyregardyourchoiceasamerewhim.Topretendotherwiseisdisingenuous.More
importantly,perhaps,anyattempttoshifttheweightofmoralresponsibilityontothevictim
seemsbothphilosophicallymisguidedandprofoundlyunjust.

ThePointoftheAnalogy
Asyoumayhavealreadyrealised,thisanalogyisnotaboutchoiceatall.Itsalsonotabout
whetherornotawomanhastherighttodowhatevershewantswithherbody.Itssimpler
thanthat.Itsaboutthenonconsensualuseofyourbody.Thisisthepointwhichmostof
Thomsonscriticsseemtohavemissed.Itisaquestionofwhetheronepersonhastheright
tomakeuseofanother,forwhateverreason,withouttheiragreement.Iftheanswerisyes
ifwesincerelybelievethatapersondoesnothavetherighttoresistnonconsensualuse
oftheirbodythenitseemswearecommittedtosomedisturbingclaims.Wewillhaveto
concedethatviolence,includingrapeandmurder,canalsobelegitimate.Thatsquitea
priceforpreventingabortion.
ThefeministimplicationsofThomsonsargumentshouldbeobviousbynow.Itseemsto
me,however,thattheviolinistanalogysowstheseedsofsomethingthatgoesfarbeyond
feminism.ItsnoteworthythatatnotimewhentellingherstorydoesThomsonusethe
pronounshe.Werenotobservingeventswhichhappentosomeoneelsewhois,either
necessarilyorcoincidentally,awoman.Werenotaskedtoimaginetheviolinistscenarioas
spectatorsatall.Thomsontakesgreatcaretoaddressherreaderdirectly.She,likeme,is
talkingtoyou.Sothisisnotaquestionofwhetherwomenshouldbecompelledtosubmitto
thenonconsensualuseoftheirbodies.Itisaquestionofwhetheryouspecifically,manor
woman,shouldsubmittosuchnonconsensualuse.Wouldyourrapebemorallylegitimate?
Itsadisturbingquestion,butitsanimportantphilosophicalmove,too,asitremindsusthat
wenegateotherpeoplesrightsatthecostofourown.Icannotreasonablystakemyclaim
totherighttoresistnonconsensualuseofmybodywhiledenyingthatrighttoothers.

Theobviousobjectionhereconcernsthedifferencesbetweenrapeandunwanted
pregnancy.Butitisntthemethodofnonconsensualusethatwereconcernedwith,itsthe
factofit.Ifitwasmerelyaquestionoftheillegitimacyofviolence,thenwemighthaveto
saythatnonviolentrapewhere,forexample,thevictimisdruggedisacceptable.Ifyou
arguethatrapeisviolentbydefinition(asmanywould),thenyoudhavetoexplainwhatit
isthatmakesitso.Yetitsdifficulttoimaginewhatmightbeconsistentlymorally
unacceptablehereotherthanthefactthatitsnonconsensualuseofsomeonesbody.
SothepertinentquestionisDoesthefoetusmakeuseofitsmothersbody?Ifitdoes,
thenwehavetoaskwhetherthemotherspermissionisrequired.IftheanswerisNo,
thenwehavetwochoices.Eitherwehavetoexplainwhypermissionisgenerallynot
requiredbeforemakinguseofawomansbody,orwehavetoexplainwhythisparticular
person(wevealreadyconcededthatafoetusisapersonjustlikeanyother)hastherightto
makeuseofsomeoneelsesbodywithoutpermission.Iftheanswertothesecondoption
referstotheinnocenceoftheunbornchild,thenitlookslikethisalsoimpliesthatsomeone
whohasdonenothingwronggetstorapeandthatsjustabsurd.

AntiAbortionIsAntiPersonhood
Backtothecalmwatersofphilosophicalreflection.Denyapersontherightsover
consensualuseoftheirbody,andwenegatetheirpersonhood.Inaword,weobjectify
them,treatingthemasathingtobeusedforwhateverpurposewechoose.
Thisparticulartypeofobjectificationofpeoplehasalongandvenerablehistory.Itgoes
backatleastasfarastheancientGreeks,whoregardedthefatherasthetrueparentofa
child,andthemotherasamerevesselforhisseed.Awomanisnothingmorethanapotto
bepushedaround,passedaround,dropped,shelved,orsmashed,allatyourownerswhim.
ThatswhatItellmystudents.Itdoesnotgodownwell.
Itsimportanttobeclearaboutthis.Werenottalkingaboutatemporarysuspensionof
rights.Weretalkingaboutnegatingthementirely.Eventheworstcriminalsdontsuffer
that.Manyoftheirrightsmaybesuspended.Iftheyreunfortunateenoughtofind
themselvesintheUnitedStates,theymayevenendupondeathrow.Butwedonot
objectifycriminals:wedonotdenytheirpersonhood.Infact,punishmentmaywellbea
partoftreatingsomeoneasaperson.Punishmentcanbeamarkofrespectforthe
wrongdoersautonomy,theircapacitytomakegenuinechoices.

TheoverallpointhereisessentiallyaKantianone.WhenImmanuelKantarguedthatwe
shouldtreatothersnotonlyasameansbutalsoalwaysasanendinthemselves,he
describedthebareminimumforamoralrecognitionofothers.ButifIcanswitchyour
rightsoffatmyormysocietysconvenience,thenImnottreatingyouasanythingmore
thanameansofsatisfyingmywantsanddesires.Onsuchafoundation,moralthinkingwill
notstand.
Thisistheparadoxattheheartoftheantiabortionargument:therighttolifeisdefendedat
thecostofanyvaluesthatmakesitworthdefending,andthateffectsallofus.By
objectifyinghalfthespeciesbydenyingwomentherighttoresistnonconsensualuseof
theirbodiesantiabortionistsendupobjectifyingeveryone.Theynegatepersonhoodin
general.BeingunabletodistinguishpeoplefromobjectsmeansthatIvefailedto
understandwhatitmeanstobeapersonmyself.Insomecrucialsense,then,myfailureto
recogniseyouasapersonisanexpressionofmyownthinghood.
BrieflyandborrowinganargumentfromthelateP.F.Strawson,recognisingmyselfasa
personstandsuponapriorrecognitionofothersaspersons.Beingabletoascribe
personhoodtoothersistheadequate(notthenecessary)logicalconditionforascribingitto
myself,becauseIhavelearnedhowandwhatitmeanstobeapersonfromothers.Where
doallthethingsthatmakeupourhumanitycomefrom:allthemoralandspiritualideas,the
activitiesandbehaviourswhichexpressouridentity?Thinkaboutthelanguageinwhichyou
expressallthethingsthatmakeyouwhoandwhatyouare.Wheredotheseideascome
from?Weretaughthowtobepersonsbyotherpersons,whogiveusthetoolswithwhich
tomakeofourselveswhatandwhowearetobecome.Thatsacommonplaceof
developmentalpsychologyaswellasexistentialphilosophy:mypersonhoodisboundup
withothers.IamapersoninsofarasItransactpersonhoodwithothersIamamoral
agentinsofarasIengagemorallywithothersIamalanguageuserinsofarasI
communicatewiththem.IfIfailtorecognisethemoralstatusofothers,orrefusetotake
partinthesetransactions,thenIlimitmyselfjustasIlimitothers:Ibecomemerelyone
thingamongothers.
Thisiswheretheantiabortionargumentgrindstoahalt.IfIdenywomentherightto
determinetheconsensualuseoftheirbodies,Ireducethemtoobjects.DothatandIreduce
myselftoanobjectlikewise.Here,itseemstome,isthecentralcontradiction.Bynegating
myownpersonhood,Itakemyselfoutofthemoralpicture,andIamnolongerina
positiontoascribepersonhoodtoanyoneelse,includingthefoetus.Objectscannotengage
inmoraltransactionsthat,tosomeextent,iswhytheyareclassedasobjects.The
objectificationofothersleavesmeunabletomakethekindofvaluejudgementswhich
underpintheascriptionofpersonhood.SoIcannotcoherentlydenywomenconsensual
autonomyovertheirownbodies.

Fromthisperspective,therighttolifeargumentagainstabortionlookslikearedherring.
Thepointisnotwhetherwegrantthefoetusarighttolife.Anditsnotaboutawomans
righttochooseeither.Itsmorebasicthanthat.Itsaboutwhetherweregardsome
individualsastrulypersons,andwhetherwebasethatdecisiononsomethingsoarbitrary
andalientomoralthinkingasourreproductivebiology.Ifwedo,thenwesubscribetoa
prejudicewhichunderminesanynotionofrightsorofpersonhood.Putanotherway,aright
tolifehavetomeanmorethansimplybeingallowedtocontinuebreathing.
Takingastandagainstabortiononthebasisofthefoetussrighttolifeultimatelyfails
becauseofwhatitdeniesaboutwhatitclaimstouphold.Whatlooksandsoundslikea
moraljudgementis,infact,merelyaprejudice,thatis,ameansofclassifyingsomething
accordingtoirrelevantfeatures.Pressingthepoint,ifweregoingtoholdthatnon
consensualuseismadeacceptablebyanindividualsroleinprocreation,whycantwesay
thatonthebasisofskincolourtoo?Aslongaswedontcomplainwhenithappenstous.
Thatstherippleeffectofthiscontradiction.Itgoesmuchfurtherthantheissueofabortion.
Assuggestedatthebeginning,todenywomenbodilyautonomylegitimisesrapeand
murder,notjustofwomen,butofallofus.Oncewevebeenreclassifiedasobjectstheres
nomoraldefenceagainstouruse,orourdestruction,byothers.Theresnothingmorally
wrongwithbreakingapot.Intheend,Isuspect,thisisonereasonwhytheabortiondebate
slidessoeasilyintoviolence,whypeoplebelievethatclinicscanbefirebombedandthe
peoplewhoworktheremurdered.Evidentlythevalueofhumanlifeisnotaprimary
concern.Andthatmaybethemostshockingthoughtofall.
DrSimonSmith2013
HavingspentthelastyearastheonlyprofessionalphilosopherinOman,SimonSmithis
currentlyanindependentscholarandwildlyenthusiasticmemberoftheSocietyforPost
CriticalandPersonalistStudies.
Thissiteusescookiestorecognizeusersandallowustoanalysesiteusage.Bycontinuing
tobrowsethesitewithcookiesenabledinyourbrowser,youconsenttotheuseofcookies
inaccordancewithourprivacypolicy.